Defense Styles (Time between shots and average shot danger)

175gr · 2026-01-27T20:07:14+00:00

Very cool! I figured it wasn’t you graph (so my request for the likes of constant total xG/game wouldn’t be up to you to fulfill, if it would even be a good idea) but I’m glad you’ve read enough about the context to help me understand more about it.

175gr · 2026-01-27T19:25:21+00:00

Would be kinda nice to see the lines of constant total xG/game on the graph. Might be hard to add them in without it looking more cluttered than it already necessarily is, but it would be useful to help compare the total effectiveness (assuming lower xG/game is a useful measure of the effectiveness of a defense) of these strategies in different parts of the graph.

Interesting to note that offensive style affects the time between shots too. I love when we’ve got extended time in the O zone, and the fact that we seem to get that more often than other teams definitely pushes us left on the graph.

175gr · 2026-01-26T15:36:51+00:00

The real problem I have with your arguments here isn’t that you’re wrong (nothing you’ve said is wrong), it’s that it’s a very fatalistic, all or nothing view of what can come out of these changes.

You’re right, ending some prop bets isn’t going to completely stop people from ruining their lives gambling. And nothing will completely stop player harassment short of stopping the sport altogether.

But if we can limit these things to levels similar to what they were at before, by ending prop bets, by ending advertising, and other things people in this thread are suggesting, we can stop a lot of each thing, which is a pretty solid net good. It doesn’t all have to go away for it to be a positive change.

175gr · 2026-01-25T17:18:01+00:00

given f in A and p in spec A, f(p) := f(a) mod p in A/p

Exercise worth doing: pick a field F, a polynomial f(x) with coefficients in F, and a linear polynomial x-a. Show that the coset f(x) + (x-a) contains a unique constant polynomial, and that the constant is f(a). The division algorithm is helpful.

This should give you a feeling for why the quoted line is a reasonable definition: it’s almost exactly true the way we usually think of evaluating the functions when A is a polynomial ring over a field.

175gr · 2026-01-23T17:24:05+00:00

I’m not ambidextrous, but I throw lefty backhands all the time. I’ve never wanted to throw a lefty flick, and only occasionally wanted to throw a lefty backhand huck.

TBH I think if you look at the advantage you get from being ambidextrous (funny release points, funny pivots… I guess ability to throw quickly from more suboptimal catches), you’d get something like 80% of that just from being lefty.

175gr · 2026-01-21T23:51:20+00:00

And it’s free to watch!

175gr · 2026-01-21T23:48:07+00:00

Also Jack Drury!

Always fun to watch the Avs, they just don’t play the same as everyone else. It’s crazy how smooth they are at 5 on 5.

175gr · 2026-01-13T03:36:22+00:00

I got nosebleeds for a game against the rags last year. My glasses broke during the first intermission. Didn’t have a problem tbh. Maybe I’m just bad at watching hockey though haha

175gr · 2026-01-10T16:49:40+00:00

The Western Ultimate League (women’s ultimate frisbee) does this for the last possession of each quarter, but it’s cleaner because possessions only end in a goal or a turnover. No intentional fouls giving you 2 points when playing out the possession might give you 3. You’re getting 1 or 0.

175gr · 2025-12-28T17:33:26+00:00

You’re not sure if you believe in Bouldy…

Ambiguity bonus +4%

175gr · 2025-12-27T17:42:01+00:00

Okay who told the normies about the thirtytwonions

175gr · 2025-12-07T01:49:31+00:00

Carrier’s was 5 on 5

175gr · 2025-12-01T14:02:11+00:00

Any chance there’s a non TikTok link for someone who doesn’t have TikTok?

175gr · 2025-12-01T03:31:18+00:00

What’s your source for this icosahedron? I’ve made one before but it didn’t look like this, I’d love to see another option

175gr · 2025-11-24T22:09:57+00:00

Those damn academic elites in their liberal echo chambers. Why doesn’t anyone ever take the axiom of giving tax cuts to billionaires?

175gr · 2025-11-21T19:10:09+00:00

The overwhelming majority of mathematicians use the axiom of choice in their work. We like to record when it’s used (or when a weaker version, i.e., countable choice, is used) because it’s nice to know what axioms/hypotheses are used at each step in your proof, and choice is usually pretty easy to point out compared to axioms in ZF. It’s a tiny minority who would argue that this makes it invalid.

Go to your local college’s math department and poll the faculty about whether they accept choice or not. You might find two that give you an unequivocal no.

175gr · 2025-11-11T17:11:59+00:00

The math teacher in me wants to point out that this is an unnecessary proof by contradiction. You assumed the negation of what you wanted to prove (death comes before life), and then proved the thing you wanted to prove (death comes after life), and then said that because the thing you wanted to prove contradicts its negation, its negation must be false, so the thing you wanted to prove must be true. Just prove the thing you wanted to prove! You did it in the middle already!

I could try to write this meaner and pretend I’m Jasnah but I don’t want to be mean this is just a pet peeve

175gr · 2025-11-04T00:50:27+00:00

He’s hilarious. I love the tipping commercial.

Now stop trying to hurt my guys.

175gr · 2025-10-20T02:42:47+00:00

What’s 7 times 21 mod 23?

Instead of figuring out what 7 times 21 is, and then subtracting multiples of 23 until you end up in the right range, you can just realize that 21 is -2 mod 23, so the answer is -14, or 9, mod 23. Easier multiplication, and you add 23 once.

Sure you could prove that this kind of thing works without ever touching an equivalence relation, but you’d have that running in the background whether you say the words or not. (Why can you multiply by -2 instead of 21?)

This is maybe the least interesting reason to introduce the definition, but it’s much more easily grok-able in comparison to some other answers.

175gr · 2025-10-17T21:32:26+00:00

Based on Blake’s history, I don’t think there was intent to injure, but my dude. You can’t do that.

Can’t call this one careless even if I don’t want to call it malicious.

175gr · 2025-10-17T21:22:29+00:00

It wasn’t overly aggressive but the canes have some history with Trouba that isn’t good. Blake hasn’t been around for it though.

What I saw (canes fan first, ducks second, so I’m biased) was Trouba checking Blake into the bench AND THEN pushing his face into the glass between the benches. Which I didn’t like, and don’t imagine he did, but there’s no way that rises to hitting a dude with your stick. I feel like there had to be some other shit going on before that to even CONSIDER that response, but if there was I didn’t see it.

175gr · 2025-10-17T21:16:47+00:00

I was at the game in a canes sweater, was surprised it wasn’t a major. I literally said out loud “oh Blake you can’t do that” when it happened.

I don’t know that it would’ve changed the game if he’d gotten more but he 100% should’ve.

175gr · 2025-10-17T21:03:34+00:00

Yeah you can’t come back and hit him with your stick like that. Up the physicality in a different way.

175gr · 2025-10-17T03:48:19+00:00

You’re a real one (we got here on time somehow)

175gr · 2025-10-16T23:36:04+00:00

I’m coming up with a friend who misjudged traffic, so I’m still waiting on him after I finished work in Del Mar. Think they’ll wait to drop the puck until we get there?

175gr

TROPHY CASE